I'm engaged in argument with a clueless but possibly educable reader at
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/
Inevitably, after I explained how copyright has been changed
retroactively, and works that should have entered the Public Domain
remain privatized, I got this:
"# iggy Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am e
ok. one more question. if warner bros. wants to use part of your film
in “batman 23″ and “batman 23″ goes on to make 300 trillion
dollars, do you or your heirs want any part of those profits? or are
you just glad that millions of people will have seen a part of it?
what rights do you have in your film and do you put any monetary value
on those rights?
(don’t flip out over the example of commingling your film with a
studio movie. it’s just for arguments sake)."
I'm sure many of you have been engaged in arguments that equate
creative work made 80 years ago with work made yesterday. This is of
course Apples and Oranges (although I personally feel dissemination of
my work is more important than monetization, I also believe a reformed
copyright with time limits would benefit artists like me. But the
completely corrupt copyright mess we have now is bad for artists and
culture).
How do you usually explain these finer points of copyright? Anyone
want to help educate those in need by commenting in the thread at
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/
?
Thanks,
--Nina
* * * * * * * * *
Nina Paley
Animator/Illustrator/Cartoonist
http://www.ninapaley.com
http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
